Letters to the Editor

The arguments of William B. Ball and Chester E. Finn Jr. for tax
support for nonpublic schools ("False Assumptions on Voucher Programs
and the Law"; "Does 'Public' Mean 'Good' ?", Commentary, Feb. 12, 1992)
will not stand close scrutiny.

While Mr. Ball cites U.S. Supreme Court approval of some peripheral
tax aids for nonpublic schools, such as transportation and textbook
loans, he conveniently overlooks the fact that the Court in the 1970's
and 1980's specifically held unconstitutional tuition reimbursement
grants and tax credits, the practical equivalent of vouchers.

Mr. Finn's collection of cliches, non sequiturs, and semantic
sandtraps in defense of the notion that nonpublic schools are somehow
public is a classic case of Orwellian doublespeak.

Public, as in public education, refers to the institutions operated
by local beards elected by parents and taxpayers in some 15,000
districts, which exist to serve all children and in fact serve 90
percent of them, which are bound by law to respect the religious and
cultural diversity of our population, and which enjoy the confidence of
the vast majority of the families they directly serve.

Mr. Ball and Mr. Finn carefully overlook the fact that in the
fastest growing sector of nonpublic education, fundamentalist schools,
history, civics, literature, and science classes and textbooks are used
to provide sectarian indoctrination and to denigrate Catholics,
Quakers, Episcopalians, Unitarians, humanists, scientists, leading
American writers, and others. Public funds must never be used to fund
sectarian indoctrination or bigotry. Most Americans can see through the
propaganda fog emitted by sectarian special interests and their
political allies. Polls in 1991 show opposition to vouchers for
nonpublic schools running 68 percent to 26 or 28 percent. In 18
referenda from coast to coast since 1966, voters have consistently
rejected all forms of tax support for nonpublic schools.

By all means, let us work to improve public education, but let us
not wreck public education and religious liberty in the process.

I strongly object to Harry Weinberg's Commentary, "For School
Choice, Let's Follow the F.A.A." (Feb. 12, 1992). Mr. Weinberg uses
several examples of Federal Aviation Administration regulations to
rather cleverly make a case that if private schools accept public funds
they should be required to adhere to the same regulations as public
schools--the old "level playing field" saw.

I found Mr. Weinberg's arguments too intelligent, valid, clear, and
concise. His presentation was replete with common sense and there was
little room for argument or divisiveness.

Harry Weinberg shouldn't feel smug or satisfied. Once the
educational bureaucracy and government officials pounce on his
rationale, it will never fly.

Despite the misleading comparisons by Chester Finn and the legal
arguments of William B. Ball, Harry C. Weinberg got closer to the truth
about the rush to privatize public education. In his Commentary, he
called for a "level playing field" that seems curiously like the one
our politicos want in our marketplace competition with Japan.

Public education in the United States is over-regulated, while
private schools operate in a laissez faire, buyer-beware fashion. When
the privatization pushers proclaim the unproven values of competition
for students and public funds, they fail to mention the private-school
competitive edge that Mr. Weinberg revealed--unlicensed teachers,
unregulated curriculum content, lower building-safety standards, vague
standards of accountability, and the ability to reject students who
don't match their requirements.

Mr. Weinberg hinted at another subtle pressure that may be prompting
the push from privatized public education--population demographics. As
the United States approaches the 21st century, when minorities will
outnumber whites, we should not be surprised that many of those who
fear for their privileged status seek to protect it by creating an
educational caste system on the ashes of an overburdened, underfunded
public system forced into the "competition" with both hands tied by
ridiculous regulation. For shame!

Should more gentle readers react unfavorably to my rhetoric, I ask
them to do some research. Show us how recent revisions to improve
competition helped improve our savings-and-loans, banks, airlines, or
telephone service. Let's not "Milken-ize" our public schools.

Dennis W. Doggett Belie Mead, NJ.

To the Editor:

After reading your article headlined, "Opposed to Whole Language,
Houston Schools Revert to Phonics" (Nov. 20, 1991), I felt I could not
let such biased reporting pass without a response.

Not until I was nearing the end of the story did I find the fact
that there are 162 Houston schools that plan to continue whole-language
programs, while only 8 wish to revert to another program. Isn't your
headline somewhat biased in light of this fact?

In the second paragraph, you state that the children concerned are
from low-income families and that the families are not able to provide
the at-home support needed to make whole-language programs work. Many
schools in the country that have low-income children are making a
success of whole language. While it is wonderful for any program to
have parental involvement and support, it is not necessary to make
whole language work.

Your article also infers that reading instruction is either phonics
or whole language. Reading is not an either-or proposition. People who
do not believe phonics instruction is involved in whole-language
teaching simply do not know what whole language means. It is a part of
the skill activities involved in whole language.

Simply knowing the sounds and repeating the words louder and faster
does not mean a child can read, or understand what he is reading.

I believe you point out the real problem without realizing it when
you quote someone as saying that "the [Houston] teachers were never as
gung ho about [the whole-language approach] as they were about DISTAR."
The real problem then, is with the teachers, not the program. Perhaps
you need a new headline, something like "Teachers Cause Whole Language
Programs To Fail Because They Do Not Like the Approach." There are some
basic facts we have known about reading instruction for years: (1) the
teacher's knowledge and enthusiasm about a program make the program
work; and (2) the amount of time spent teaching the program makes the
difference as to whether or not children learn to read.

I wish teaching children phonics was the solution to having every
child read. If that were true, then all we would have to do as teachers
would be simply to drill every child long enough, until the student had
learned all the letters and sounds and could blend those together. But
that has been going on for years and the end result is that we have
hundreds of thousands of children who cannot read.

Kudos for your article "'Supply Side' Reform or Voucher?
Charter-School Concept Takes Hold" (Jan. 15, 1992). Not only did it
thoroughly cover current charter concepts, it correctly traced the
evolution of the concept over the past several years.

We were particularly pleased that the article correctly credited Ray
Budde for first placing the idea before the public in his book,
Education by Charter: Restructuring School Districts, which our
regional laboratory published in 1988.

Mr. Budde first introduced the charter concept at a conference in
1974 and in subsequent years refined it to incorporate many of the
research findings and recommendations of the 1980's. He continues to
lecture and offer workshops around the country on its central
constructs.

Notable features of his system that are particularly relevant to the
current debate are a strong program for ensuring accountability and
suggestions for a year-round calendar.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.